January 28, 2017

Seven Non-Grata

Mr. Trump on Friday signed an executive order that suspends entry into the U.S. of anyone from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for at least 90 days. The rule affects the seven Muslim-majority nations with a total population of 130 million. - WSJ

I have a surly presumption against those bird dogging Donald Trump. I think the symbolism of their political impotence is more important to them than their actual humanitarian disappointment. So I ask the following rude questions. Imagine that in one year it will be impossible for people from the banned seven countries to get into the USA under any condition. What then do those opposed to the ban, presumably for the benefit of those countries actually propose to do to X where X is the most important thing we Americans did for those people in those countries as of one month ago?

The first problem is that for Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Sudan and Syria most people cannot come up with a reasonable X. I think that is less true of those on Trump's side, but we've already heard about the Axis of Evil before. That counts off two. Libya, the former domain of Kadaffi has never been held in high esteem by Americans. I can't think of anyone who sympathized with the government of Sudan's ethnic cleansing of its Christians. Surely people recognize that South Sudan now exists (whose official language is English, by the way). Yemen. Well, I really don't understand why we are so late in recognizing the hostility of Yemen so many years after the Stark, nevertheless I've not heard many voices championing them against the Saudis such that American boots were ever considered. Syria is a complete mess, in the midst of a civil war. So there's that.

Now I happen to be involved with a non-profit organization that aims to inform folks about the plight of women, children and gays in that among other deprived corners of the world. So in fact I'm aiming to learn exactly what it is that thoughtful and sympathetic Americans plan to do and facilitate that. But I can't imagine that such people cannot see anything other than immigration and naturalization as a defense of freedom. So that is the rude question. So let's dress it up in rude clothing as well, because I need to draw out some real reasons.

Are you just saying that the only way for people to be free is for them to come to America? Really? How 1914.

So what are the other strategies? Who are your point people on the ground? How dangerous does this make the situation for those denied entry? What numbers of people did you expect to come? Is it more or less than the 175 per day estimated?

What begs this rude question is the presumption that by having open borders for these specific seven countries, unlike any other, that the previous administration was demonstrating something other than symbolic sentiments. And this is the presumption that makes opposition to Trump sound to my ears a lot less humanitarian than partisan. But I'll leave it at that. What are your plans for Somalia?

Comments

Seven Non-Grata

Mr. Trump on Friday signed an executive order that suspends entry into the U.S. of anyone from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for at least 90 days. The rule affects the seven Muslim-majority nations with a total population of 130 million. - WSJ

I have a surly presumption against those bird dogging Donald Trump. I think the symbolism of their political impotence is more important to them than their actual humanitarian disappointment. So I ask the following rude questions. Imagine that in one year it will be impossible for people from the banned seven countries to get into the USA under any condition. What then do those opposed to the ban, presumably for the benefit of those countries actually propose to do to X where X is the most important thing we Americans did for those people in those countries as of one month ago?

The first problem is that for Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Sudan and Syria most people cannot come up with a reasonable X. I think that is less true of those on Trump's side, but we've already heard about the Axis of Evil before. That counts off two. Libya, the former domain of Kadaffi has never been held in high esteem by Americans. I can't think of anyone who sympathized with the government of Sudan's ethnic cleansing of its Christians. Surely people recognize that South Sudan now exists (whose official language is English, by the way). Yemen. Well, I really don't understand why we are so late in recognizing the hostility of Yemen so many years after the Stark, nevertheless I've not heard many voices championing them against the Saudis such that American boots were ever considered. Syria is a complete mess, in the midst of a civil war. So there's that.

Now I happen to be involved with a non-profit organization that aims to inform folks about the plight of women, children and gays in that among other deprived corners of the world. So in fact I'm aiming to learn exactly what it is that thoughtful and sympathetic Americans plan to do and facilitate that. But I can't imagine that such people cannot see anything other than immigration and naturalization as a defense of freedom. So that is the rude question. So let's dress it up in rude clothing as well, because I need to draw out some real reasons.

Are you just saying that the only way for people to be free is for them to come to America? Really? How 1914.

So what are the other strategies? Who are your point people on the ground? How dangerous does this make the situation for those denied entry? What numbers of people did you expect to come? Is it more or less than the 175 per day estimated?

What begs this rude question is the presumption that by having open borders for these specific seven countries, unlike any other, that the previous administration was demonstrating something other than symbolic sentiments. And this is the presumption that makes opposition to Trump sound to my ears a lot less humanitarian than partisan. But I'll leave it at that. What are your plans for Somalia?